Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Matters (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Real Matters

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Real Matters
• Articles for deletion/Real Matters (2nd nomination)

Real Matters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a company, not properly sourced to enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH: all of the references here are primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, such as its own press releases and/or routine inclusion in business directories, and even the few that look like reliable sources on the surface (Canadian Private Equity and "NewsChannel10") still turned out to be press releases or brief, unsubstantive blurbs when I ran them through the Wayback Machine to reverify what the dead links used to say. As always, every company is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- but this isn't sourced well enough to earn one. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Its IPO in May of this year received coverage from Bloomberg and the Financial Post. The current state of the article does not include these sources or any mention of its IPO other than a change by an IP editor in September to list it as a public company. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete ,,,, Anyone can do a better article than this and make it look less spammier than this, another spam, another waste of time. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete This company is not notable, some of the sources in the article lead to broken pages and there is insufficient result from independent sources in my News search that can assert meeting WP:CORP. Also as company that deals with tech directly, independent source about them will surely be easier to locate online (if they edits) –Ammarpad (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.